This is the accessible text file for CG Presentation number GAO-07-
1210SP entitled 'Highlights Of A Forum: Transforming Transportation
Policy for the 21st Century' which was released on September 19, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Highlights Of A Forum:
Convened by the Comptroller General of the United States:
Transforming Transportation Policy for the 21st Century:
GAO-07-1210SP:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1210SP, a GAO forum.
Why GAO Convened This Forum:
The nationís economic vitality and the quality of life of its citizens
depend significantly on the security, availability, and dependability
of its transportation network. The nationís transportation network
presents particularly complex policy challenges, because it encompasses
many modes on systems owned, funded, and operated by both the public
and the private sectors. As the August collapse of a bridge span in
Minneapolis illustrated, policymakers currently face the challenge of
maintaining the safety and condition of the transportation networkóin a
time of increasing fiscal constraint. Addressing these challenges
requires a fundamental reexamination and transformation of the nationís
transportation policies and programs.
This forum brought together government, academic, and transportation
industry experts, along with GAOís own transportation specialists. The
discussion addressed (1) the appropriate goals for the nationís
transportation policy, (2) the role of the federal government in
achieving transportation goals, (3) how transportation goals might be
financed, and (4) next steps in transforming transportation policy for
the 21st century. These highlights do not necessarily represent the
views of any one participant or the organizations that these
participants represent, including GAO.
What Participants Said:
Participants said that the nationís transportation policy has lost
focus and that the nationís overall transportation goals need to be
better defined and linked to performance measures that evaluate what
the respective policies and programs actually accomplish. They noted
that as the federal share of total transportation spending continues to
decline, it has become increasingly important that federal
transportation policy goals and their link to local decision making and
spending be well defined. Further, according to participants, measured
outcomes, or performance results, should be used to drive federal
transportation policy and funding decisions. Participants indicated
that enhancing mobility and maintaining global competitiveness are the
most important goals for the nationís transportation policy.
Participants said that the federal governmentís role should focus on
the policy side of transportationóestablishing policy, providing
guidance for executing policy, and supporting local and regional
investments that correspond with federal policy goals. Additionally,
the federal government has an important role to play in the movement of
goods because of the impact on the national and global economies. They
noted ways that the federal government could encourage transportation
decisions that are consistent with national transportation goals by,
for example, developing and using incentives and strengthening the user-
pay principle.
Participants generally agreed that there is a need to address
transportation funding immediately, and no single mechanism will solve
the existing and future funding crisis facing the nationís
transportation system. Potential approaches identified by participants
include levying new taxes, implementing tolls, and utilizing congestion
pricing strategies. However, participants acknowledged potential
drawbacks to several of the funding mechanisms that were identified,
such as a lack of public support for tolling and equity concerns with
certain pricing mechanisms.
There was broad consensus among participants on the need for a
transformation of our current approach to transportation policy to
better meet current and future mobility needs in a strategic,
integrated, and sustainable manner. For a successful transformation,
participants said it is necessary to develop a constituency that will
push for and support change. Participants said that there is a need to
educate and influence both political leaders and the broader public
because transportation is not currently perceived as a significant
national problem. The public and private sectors need to better
understand the magnitude and consequences of these transportation
challenges to be motivated to change the status quo. Additionally,
participants stated that local transportation initiatives underway may
offer lessons on how to build the consensus needed to address todayís
transportation challenges.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1210SP].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact JayEtta Hecker at (202)
512-8984 or heckerj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Introduction from the Comptroller General of the United States:
Participants Said That the Nation's Transportation Policy Goals Need
Clarification and Measured Outcomes:
According to Participants, the Federal Government Should Establish
Policy and Encourage Decisions Consistent with Policy and Goals:
Participants Said There Is No "Silver Bullet" for Transportation
Financing Crisis:
Increased Consensus and Public Engagement Is Required to Transform
Transportation Policy, According to Participants:
Concluding Observations:
Appendix I: List of Participants:
Appendix II: Forum Agenda:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Financing the Nation's Transportation System:
Improving Mobility:
Improving Transportation Safety:
Managing the Transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation
System:
Building Human Capital Strategies:
Fostering Improved Financial Management:
Improving Transportation Security and Emergency Preparedness and
Response:
Table:
Table 1: DOT's Strategic Objectives:
Figures:
Figure 1: Participant Survey Responses of the Most Important
Transportation Policy Goals:
Figure 2: Participant Responses to Survey Question about Financing
Mechanisms:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Introduction from the Comptroller General of the United States:
The nation's economic vitality and the quality of life of its citizens
depend significantly on the availability, dependability, and security
of its transportation network. For the past several decades,
population, income levels, and economic activity have risen
considerably, and with them have come considerable increases in travel
demand. Transportation infrastructure has not kept pace. The result is
apparent: increasing number of hours spent inching along clogged and
deteriorating roads and highways, especially at rush hours and other
times of peak demand. The economic implications are significant,
ranging from wasted time and fuel as cars idle in traffic to increased
costs for business as the unreliability of the systems grows. In
addition to burdening the economy, congestion can also harm the
environment and the health of the nation's citizenry--for example,
through increased emissions from idling and slow-moving cars.
The nation's transportation network presents particularly complex
policy challenges, because it encompasses many modes--air, water,
highway, transit, and rail--on systems owned, funded, and operated by
both the public and the private sectors. Furthermore, transportation
decisions are inextricably linked with economic, environmental, and
energy policy concerns. Addressing these challenges requires strategic
and intermodal approaches, effective tools and programs, and
coordinated solutions involving all levels of government and the
private sector.[Footnote 1] Yet in many cases, the government is still
trying to do business in ways that are based on conditions, priorities,
and approaches that were established decades ago and are not well
suited to addressing 21st century challenges. Addressing these
challenges requires a fundamental reexamination of the nation's
transportation policies and programs.
Part of this reexamination involves exploring the existing
transportation programs and commitments, and determining whether these
remain the best approaches for the future. We have previously reported
on the following factors that highlight the need for transformation of
the nation's transportation policy.
* Future demand for transportation will strain the network. Projected
population growth, technological changes, and increased globalization
are expected to increase the strain on the nation's transportation
system. For example, according to the Transportation Research Board, an
expected population increase of 100 million by 2040 could more than
double the demand for passenger travel. Moreover, this population
growth will be concentrated in certain regions and states, intensifying
the demand for transportation in these areas.[Footnote 2] Likewise,
freight traffic is projected to grow substantially, putting additional
strain on ports, highways, railroads, and airports. Increasing
congestion and unreliable transportation systems can have severe
economic and environmental consequences. Congestion across modes--
estimated to cost roughly $200 billion per year--is significant and
projected to worsen.
* National transportation goals and priorities are difficult to
discern. Federal transportation statutes and regulations establish
multiple, and sometimes conflicting, goals and outcomes for federal
programs. For example, safety, travel-time savings, reduction of
environmental impacts, security, economic development, and reliability
are all statutorily defined factors for consideration in transportation
planning and project development. However, federal transportation
funding is not linked to system performance or to the accomplishment of
goals or outcomes. Further, we have found that formal analyses often
are not used in deciding among alternative projects, projects often do
not meet anticipated outcomes, and evaluations of outcomes are
typically not conducted.[Footnote 3] Without links between specific
performance-related outcomes and federal grant funding levels there is
little assurance that the projects selected and funded best meet the
nation's most critical but undefined mobility needs. Furthermore, most
federal highway grant funds are apportioned to state and local
governments by formula, without regard to the needs, performance,
capacity, or level of effort of recipients.
* The federal government's role is often indirect. DOT implements
national transportation policy and administers most federal
transportation programs. Its responsibilities are considerable and
reflect the extraordinary scale, use, and impact of the nation's
transportation systems. While the department carries out some
activities directly, such as air traffic control, it does not have
direct control over the vast majority of the activities that it funds,
such as local decisions on the priority of transportation projects.
Additionally, DOT's framework of separate modal administrations makes
it difficult for intermodal projects to be integrated into the
transportation network. Further, while passenger and freight travel
occurs on many different modes, federal funding and planning
requirements focus largely on highways, transit, and aviation passenger
travel. As a result, projects focused on the movement of freight--key
to the efficient movement of goods and helping ensure that American
products remain competitive in global markets--often encounter
difficulties in accessing federal, state, and local funding sources.
Unless major modes--air, water, highway, transit, and rail--are well
integrated it is unlikely that mobility can be enhanced.[Footnote 4]
* Transportation funding has not kept up with demand. Revenues from
traditional funding mechanisms will be unable to keep pace at current
tax rates, and the nation's long-term fiscal challenges constrain
decision makers' ability to use other revenue sources for
transportation needs. For example, within the Highway Trust Fund--the
major source of federal highway and transit funding--revenues are
eroding with inflation. Additionally, funding authorized in the
recently enacted highway and transit program legislation is expected to
outstrip the growth in trust fund receipts. According to recent
estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and the President's
budget, the trust fund balance will steadily decline and reach a
negative balance of more than $14 billion by the end of fiscal year
2012[Footnote 5]. Further, according to DOT, investment by all levels
of government remains well below the estimated amount needed to
maintain the condition of the nation's highway and transit systems. As
a result, the overall performance of the network is declining as
exemplified by the Minneapolis, Minnesota bridge collapse that occurred
in August 2007. As a result of these concerns, GAO designated financing
the nation's transportation infrastructure as a high-risk issue this
year[Footnote 6].
In recognition of these and other issues, GAO and others have
highlighted the need for a new approach to transportation policy. These
include suggestions for systemic changes to the way transportation
policies are designed and implemented, such as focusing policy on
economic prosperity for the nation, adopting a systems perspective
(rather than modal), and more effectively integrating priorities across
levels of government.[Footnote 7] Further, experts have suggested that
addressing the challenges facing transportation policy in the 21st
century without worsening other problems will require simultaneous
attention to such issues as mobility, safety, security, and
environmental protection. However, the slow and often cumbersome
decision-making process for transportation investments, a lack of
consensus on what investments should be made, and a decline in federal
funding and control of transportation infrastructure make transforming
the nation's transportation policy a complex undertaking.
GAO convened this forum on May 23, 2007, to help address the challenges
facing transportation policy in the 21st century. The forum brought
together government, academic, and transportation industry experts,
along with GAO's own transportation specialists. The forum's purpose
was to build knowledge and to support policymakers by identifying
transportation-related issues and strategies that could improve
government performance in an environment of increasing congestion and
severe fiscal restraint. The discussion addressed (1) the appropriate
goals for the nation's transportation policy, (2) the role of the
federal government in achieving national transportation goals, (3) how
the transportation network might be financed to meet these goals, and
(4) the next steps in transforming the nation's transportation policy.
(See app. I for a list of forum participants and app. II for the
forum's agenda.) This forum was designed for the participants to
discuss these issues openly, without individual attribution, in order
to facilitate a rich and substantive discussion of these issues.
This report summarizes the ideas and themes that emerged at the forum,
the collective discussion of participants, and comments received from
participants based on a draft of this report. The report also presents
the results of a survey that we sent to each participant prior to the
forum. The survey was intended to solicit participant opinion on the
forum discussion topics and the results of the survey were presented
during the forum to help stimulate discussion. Twenty of the 22
participants completed the survey. The highlights summarized in this
report do not necessarily represent the views of any individual
participant or the organizations that these participants represent,
including GAO.
I want to thank all the forum participants for taking the time to share
their knowledge, insights, and perspectives. We at GAO will benefit
from these insights as we carry out our work for the Congress and the
country. I look forward to working with the forum's participants on
this and other issues of mutual interest and concern in the future.
Signed by:
David M. Walker:
Comptroller General of the United States:
September 19, 2007:
[End of section]
Participants Said That the Nation's Transportation Policy Goals Need
Clarification and Measured Outcomes:
The nation's transportation policy has lost focus and national
transportation goals need to be better defined and linked to
performance measures that evaluate what the policy actually
accomplishes. As the federal share of total transportation spending
continues to decline, it has become increasingly important that federal
transportation policy goals and their link to local decision making and
spending be well defined. Further, measured outcomes, or performance
results, should be used to drive federal transportation policy and
funding decisions. Preforum survey results showed that participants
rank enhancing mobility and maintaining global competitiveness as the
most important goals for the nation's transportation policy.
Additionally, DOT has identified its top priorities as safety,
increasing mobility, and ensuring that the nation's transportation
network enables economic growth and development.
Federal Transportation Policy Is Unclear:
Participants generally agreed that federal transportation policy has
lost its focus. Current federal policy goals can be contradictory and
not well linked to incentives for local decision makers, according to
participants. For example, one participant suggested that it would be
reasonable for state departments of transportation (DOT) to favor the
use of large, fuel-inefficient vehicles because higher gas consumption
would mean more fuel tax revenue for the state, even though this goal
would be inconsistent with goals for energy efficiency. There was
general agreement that transportation policy needs to ensure that the
various types of goals--mobility, energy, environmental, safety, and
security--are aligned. Participants said the federal government has a
primary role in creating such a policy framework for transportation
investments and systems.
While participants cited the importance of the federal government in
shaping a transportation framework, they also said the current federal
structure, with its modal administrations and stovepiped programs and
funding, frequently inhibits consideration of a range of transportation
options at both the regional and the national levels. This current
federal structure has resulted in a noticeable shift by the public to
focus on finding transportation solutions and additional transportation
funding at the regional and local levels. Participants commented that
states not only implement transportation programs, but, absent clear
federal transportation goals, have considerable flexibility in how
transportation dollars are used. This can result in little assurance
that the projects selected and funded best meet critical but undefined
national mobility needs.
Participants said that measured performance results should be used to
drive decisions about transportation policy and funding, but they also
agreed there is currently no mechanism to evaluate transportation
policy effectiveness or execution. Although the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU), the current transportation authorizing legislation,
contained transportation goals for states and metropolitan planning
organizations, it falls short in administering the goals from the
federal level, according to participants. Thus, participants emphasized
that the federal government needs to invest in performance measures to
be able to determine outcomes of its policies. Participants also said
that the federal government, through authorizing statutes such as
SAFETEA-LU or other means, needs to provide local transportation
agencies with the tools for assembling transportation plans and
assessing the performance of their systems. Prioritized goals and
performance measures can be used on the local level to analyze and
compare transportation alternatives and to make transportation
decisions based on national as well as local priorities.
Most Participants Identified Enhancing Mobility and Maintaining Global
Competitiveness as Key Federal Transportation Goals:
Prior to the forum, we surveyed the participants, asking them to
evaluate, from the federal perspective, the importance of various
transportation goals including enhancing the mobility of people and
goods; promoting local and regional economic development; maintaining
global competitiveness; minimizing adverse environmental impacts of the
transportation system; encouraging certain land use patterns; improving
transportation safety; and facilitating the security of all
transportation modes. The participants indicated that for them the two
most important goals for the nation's transportation policy were
enhancing the mobility of people and goods and maintaining global
competitiveness (see fig.1). Improving transportation safety,
minimizing adverse environmental impacts of the transportation system,
and facilitating transportation security were also ranked as very
important goals by a majority of participants. The lowest-rated goals
for the nation's transportation policy were encouraging certain land
use patterns and promoting local and regional economic development.
In discussing the survey results at the forum, the participants again
emphasized the appropriateness of enhancing mobility and maintaining
global competitiveness as goals of the nation's transportation policy,
noting that it is particularly challenging to address these goals from
the local level. Several participants also stated that the nation's
transportation policy should recognize emerging conditions such as
reducing fuel dependence and minimizing the impact of the
transportation system on global climate change. In contrast, other
participants noted that the nation's transportation policy is too blunt
an instrument to use in encouraging regional economic development,
which therefore should not be included as a goal of national policy.
Figure 1: Participant Survey Responses of the Most Important
Transportation Policy Goals:
Policy Goals: Enhancing mobility;
One of the most important policy goals: 14;
Very important policy goal: 4.
Policy Goals: Global competitiveness;
One of the most important policy goals: 13;
Very important policy goal: 5.
Policy Goals: Safety;
One of the most important policy goals: 7;
Very important policy goal: 10.
Policy Goals: Environmental impacts;
One of the most important policy goals: 6;
Very important policy goal: 10.
Policy Goals: Security;
One of the most important policy goals: 5;
Very important policy goal: 10.
Policy Goals: Economic development;
One of the most important policy goals: 6;
Very important policy goal: 5.
Policy Goals: Land use;
One of the most important policy goals: 3;
Very important policy goal: 5.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
Note: Twenty of 22 participants responded to our survey.
[End of figure]
Goals Participants Identified for the Nation's Transportation Policy
Generally Coincide with DOT's Strategic Objectives:
Similar to the goals that the participants identified in the survey and
through discussion, DOT has outlined five objectives in its strategic
plan including safety, mobility, and global connectivity (see table 1).
Although DOT has not prioritized these objectives, officials have said
that safety should be the department's top priority. Participants noted
that enhancing transportation safety has the potential for great
economic gains for the nation. One participant said that each year tens
of thousands of people are killed and millions are injured in
transportation accidents in the United States, resulting in huge losses
of economic productivity as well as enormous costs to the medical
system. Additionally, currently there are few links between
transportation expenditures and safety outcomes, but such links are
needed, according to participants. Several participants pointed out
that transportation accidents and safety issues are viewed as solvable
problems in other countries, and the United States needs to take a
different approach to safety, one in which the federal government is
held accountable for results. The participants noted that the strategic
objectives of DOT should be distinguished from the nation's larger
transportation policy goals, although DOT is the primary mechanism
through which transportation policy can be administered.
Table 1: DOT's Strategic Objectives:
Strategic objective: Safety;
Description: Enhance public health and safety by working toward the
elimination of transportation-related deaths and injuries;
Strategic objective: Mobility;
Description: Advance accessible, efficient, intermodal transportation
for the movement of people and goods.
Strategic objective: Global connectivity;
Description: Facilitate a more efficient domestic and global
transportation system that enables economic growth and development;
Strategic objective: Environmental stewardship;
Description: Promote transportation solutions that enhance communities
and protect the natural and built environment.
Strategic objective: Security;
Description: Balance homeland and national security transportation
requirements with the mobility needs of the nation for personal travel
and commerce.
Source: Department of Transportation Strategic Plan 2003-2008,
September 2003.
[End of table]
According to Participants, the Federal Government Should Establish
Policy and Encourage Decisions Consistent with Policy and Goals:
The federal government's role should focus on the policy side of
transportation, establishing policy, providing guidance for executing
policy, and supporting local and regional investments that correspond
with federal policy goals. Additionally, the federal government has an
important role to play in the movement of goods because of the impact
on the national and global economies. Participants noted ways that the
federal government could encourage transportation decisions that are
consistent with national transportation goals by, for example,
including using incentives and strengthening the user-pay principle.
Preforum survey results and forum discussions showed support for
federal involvement in other, more specific, areas as well, such as
improving national transportation data and research.
Federal Government's Role Should Focus on Establishing and Supporting
National Transportation Policy, Including Goods Movement:
The federal government should focus on creating a planning framework
for state and local decision making and an oversight mechanism for
measuring goal performance, according to participants. In the previous
century the nation's transportation policy was focused on building a
vast and complex transportation infrastructure. Now, participants said,
the federal and state transportation departments need to shift from a
dominant emphasis on building to a complementary emphasis on managing
this loosely connected system of modes. According to several
participants, although the federal government has a minimal role in the
direct oversight of transportation projects, it still has enormous
leverage--over state and local agencies and the private sector--and
needs to use it to achieve national transportation policy and goals.
The cost of moving goods affects the global competitiveness of the
United States, and therefore requires federal attention, according to
participants. Participants said that in order to stay competitive, the
federal government needs to identify ways to maximize freight
efficiency and develop incentives for doing so. Participants said that
the negative impact of congestion is already affecting the nation's
competitive edge, and in the future, the demand for movement of goods
will grow in response to such factors as economic development in and
growing trade with countries such as China and India. One participant
said that while it is necessary to develop transportation
infrastructure on a regional level, links between regions must also be
forged for moving goods, and it is likely that the federal role will be
key in doing so. Participants raised several examples of increased
congestion in important transportation corridors due to cross-modal or
cross-jurisdictional barriers. The ports of Miami and Newark were noted
as examples of locations where congestion can be significant in moving
large amounts of people and goods in and out of ports due to
particularly poor connectivity of modes and coordination among the
various stakeholders including the private sector as well as federal,
state, county, and local government agencies.
Use Incentives to Encourage Transportation Decisions That Are
Consistent with Nationally Defined Goals:
Participants said that the federal government should establish and use
incentives to encourage state and local transportation agencies to act
in accordance with better defined national policy goals. They agreed
that transportation programs and funding need to be tied to incentives
and identified outcomes--as opposed to the current structure of federal
programs, which can function as revenue-sharing mechanisms (i.e.,
revenues are distributed among the states and projects are determined
at the state or local levels). Participants suggested that by clearly
defining national transportation goals and priorities and using
incentives for other levels of government to contribute to those goals,
the federal government can provide the political leadership that state
and local agencies need to (1) implement projects with benefits that
extend beyond their boundaries, and (2) more broadly apply new
financing mechanisms such as congestion pricing. Moreover, participants
noted, past experiences demonstrate that the incentives do not need to
involve large sums of money to encourage state and local governments to
act.
Participants pointed to cases in which using incentives and penalties
have resulted in desired policy changes. For example, SAFETEA-LU
established an incentive grant program to encourage states to pass
primary safety belt laws.[Footnote 8] Since the law was signed, 3
states have enacted primary safety belt laws,[Footnote 9] bringing the
total number of such states to 25.[Footnote 10] Additionally, the
federal government has used penalties to push for certain policy
changes. For example, penalties were used to encourage states to
implement a "zero tolerance" law which required states to enact and
enforce laws making it illegal for drivers under age 21 to drive with a
blood alcohol concentration of .02 percent or more. States were subject
to the withholding of federal-aid highway funds for not implementing
such a law beginning in 1999. All 50 states had established such laws
by 1999.
Strengthen the User-Pay Principle:
Participants also stated that the federal government should strengthen
and expand the user-pay principle. This principle--that users should
pay for the infrastructure they use--is a long-standing tenet of
transportation policy in the United States. For instance, federal,
state, and local governments have imposed excise taxes on motor fuels
and other taxes on inputs into driving, such as taxes on tires, and
charged fares for transit. These taxes, in turn, may be used to pay for
a variety of transportation projects. Participants pointed out that the
public generally agrees that users should pay something commensurate
with the costs to provide transportation services, but that pricing
initiatives are often politically difficult for local agencies to
implement--as demonstrated by the fact that only a handful of state and
local governments have implemented various pricing strategies. One
participant suggested that the user-pay principle should be considered
a fundamental element of all federal programs and activities.
Participants Identified Other Roles for the Federal Government:
All participants responding to our preforum survey agreed that the
federal government should have a role in minimizing adverse
environmental impacts of the transportation system, improving safety,
and facilitating the security of all modes. Additionally, our survey
results showed that nearly all (19 of 20) participants agreed that the
federal government should have a role in enhancing mobility and
maintaining global competitiveness. Other roles for the federal
government mentioned by participants included:
* Research and innovation. Several participants said that the federal
government has a role in funding and developing research, technology,
and innovation because it is difficult for local governments to fund
these types of activities.
* Data collection. Most participants agreed that the federal government
should have a primary role in improving data collection. Participants
said that reliable and comprehensive national transportation data are
necessary for planning, decision making, and performance evaluation.
Participants Said There Is No "Silver Bullet" for Transportation
Financing Crisis:
There is a need to address transportation funding immediately, and no
single mechanism will solve the existing and future funding crisis
facing the nation's transportation system. Potential mechanisms
identified by participants include increasing existing or levying new
taxes, implementing tolling mechanisms and other user fees, instituting
congestion pricing, and offering incentives. Our preforum survey
results also showed support for a variety of other funding mechanisms,
though none of the options were highly recommended by a majority of
participants. Additionally, participants cited drawbacks to several of
the mechanisms that were raised.
Various Funding Mechanisms Will Need to Be Used:
Participants generally agreed that it will take a variety of funding
mechanisms to address projected transportation financing shortfalls.
They said that the size and nature of the funding problems facing the
transportation system simply cannot be solved by one approach.
Participants suggested a number of user fee strategies, describing them
as generally inexpensive to administer, although participants noted
that restrictive federal policies can prevent state and local agencies
from adopting them. In particular, participants generally agreed that
pricing mechanisms, such as congestion pricing, show a great deal of
promise and should be pursued. Participants said that the federal
government needs to use its leverage with state and local
transportation agencies to support the implementation of pricing
initiatives, which some localities and regions currently are studying
or interested in adopting. In general, participants agreed that
whatever financing options are pursued, investments need to seek to
align fees and taxes with use and benefits and be better linked to
performance of all aspects of the transportation system including
highways, transit, parking, and pedestrians.
A variety of funding mechanisms were suggested by participants,
including:
* Taxes. Tax options raised by participants included increasing or
utilizing property taxes, fuel taxes, or income taxes, as well as
implementing a carbon tax. Participants pointed out that the use of
different types of tax options at the state and local levels has been
growing recently, and that there has been increasing acceptance of tax
strategies by the public in cases where the resulting transportation
benefits are well understood.
* Congestion pricing. Participants also supported congestion pricing,
which attempts to influence driver behavior by charging drivers higher
prices during peak hours. However, participants noted that few states
have actually implemented congestion pricing or other pricing
techniques, which, they suggested, likely reflects initial public and
political opposition to such proposals. The most common form of
congestion pricing in the United States is high-occupancy toll (HOT)
lanes, which are priced lanes that offer drivers of vehicles that do
not meet the occupancy requirements the option of paying a toll to use
lanes that are otherwise restricted for high-occupancy
vehicles.[Footnote 11]
* Tolling. Participants said that tolling can be a good option because
it brings in new sources of revenues, and as noted above, can help
influence driver behavior and increase efficiency in resource
allocation. Tolls can generate revenues that are consistent with the
user-pay principle because the driver is directly paying to use the
specific road and the revenues collected from the toll can go directly
to pay for the road's construction, maintenance, and operation.
* Public-private partnerships. Participants said that developing
partnerships with private industry to help fund transportation projects
can offer a number of benefits for transportation agencies, such as
expediting project schedules, reducing costs, and providing access to
private funding sources.[Footnote 12]
* Other user fees. Participants generally agreed that user fees are a
good tool when levied on transportation, but emphasized the importance
of dedicating the revenues raised to transportation. Participants also
noted that DOT is encouraging user fees on the regional and local
levels, and supported this effort.
Our preforum survey results anticipated the forum discussion. In our
preforum survey, participants recommended that the federal government
support a variety of transportation financing mechanisms including
better aligning taxes with the costs of the system, indexing the
federal motor vehicle tax to inflation, and encouraging the increased
use of toll roads. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to
which they recommended these financing mechanisms as viable strategies
to address the nation's transportation financing challenges and all of
the mechanisms were recommended to some degree by nearly all
participants. Each financing mechanism listed in the survey was
recommended "to a great extent" by at least four participants (see fig.
2).
Figure 2: Participant Responses to Survey Question about Financing
Mechanisms:
[Bar graph with nine horizontal bars representing the number of
participant responses]:
Financing Options: Better align taxes with actual system cost;
Recommend to a great extent: 10;
Recommend to a moderate extent: 6.
Financing Options: Better utilize existing infrastructure;
Recommend to a great extent: 10;
Recommend to a moderate extent: 6.
Financing Options: Index federal motor vehicle tax to inflation;
Recommend to a great extent: 9;
Recommend to a moderate extent: 4.
Financing Options: Implement user fees;
Recommend to a great extent: 8;
Recommend to a moderate extent: 5.
Financing Options: Encourage congestion pricing;
Recommend to a great extent: 7;
Recommend to a moderate extent: 9.
Financing Options: Encourage toll roads;
Recommend to a great extent: 7;
Recommend to a moderate extent: 9.
Financing Options: Provide investment credits;
Recommend to a great extent: 6;
Recommend to a moderate extent: 9.
Financing Options: Eliminate Highway Trust Fund exemptions;
Recommend to a great extent: 5;
Recommend to a moderate extent: 5.
Financing Options: Encourage public private partnerships;
Recommend to a great extent: 4;
Recommend to a moderate extent: 10.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
Note: Twenty of 22 participants responded to our survey.
[End of figure]
Participants Offered a Few Caveats about Financing Mechanisms:
Although participants agreed that the nation must address the
transportation financing crisis, they also discussed some of the
drawbacks to implementing new financing approaches. Several
participants commented that an increase in the current fuel tax alone
would not be sufficient to solve the transportation financing crisis.
Additionally, a number of participants stated that the rules governing
public-private partnerships may need to be regulated or standardized. A
few participants cautioned against any reliance or planned use of the
general fund as a transportation financing approach, noting that the
general fund will have little left after debt financing and Social
Security payments.
Furthermore, participants raised concerns about the equity of pricing
mechanisms. For example, one participant asked whether, when people
move out of the city to avoid the increasing cost of living, is it fair
to charge them (through pricing mechanisms) to come back into the city
for employment? Another participant said that equity issues are also a
concern associated with increasing taxes to support transportation,
because such taxes place a disproportionate burden on lower income
groups. Several participants noted that these concerns should not
prevent the government from encouraging or pursuing them; rather,
strategies to identify and compensate the affected groups of these
funding mechanisms should be considered during policy development and
implementation.
Participants agreed that the public and the private sectors need to be
better informed of and better educated about available funding
mechanisms. They said that there is currently a general lack of
understanding about transportation financing and tolling. For example,
the public often opposes tolls, believing that they have already paid
for the roads through gas taxes although it is widely acknowledged that
the gas tax has not kept pace with the costs of operating, maintaining,
and improving the current system. In addition, according to
participants, the public often sees tolls as merely collecting revenues
and does not understand that they can be used to manage traffic and
achieve environmental benefits.
Participants Provided Examples of Effective Pilot Projects:
Participants agreed that state and local governments' efforts to
develop, test, and implement alternative financing mechanisms serve as
an important test bed for identifying funding solutions for the
nation's transportation financing crisis. Participants discussed
Oregon's pilot project, the "Road User Fee Pilot Program," which tested
a new road revenue system. The purpose of the program was to create and
test a reliable, broad-based charge that would replace the fuel tax.
The pilot project involved implementing an electronically collected
mileage fee that assists in the management of road congestion levels.
For example, the per-mile fee charged to drivers (at the gas pump as
part of the fuel purchase) was greater for travel during rush hour than
at off-peak travel times. One participant described this pilot pricing
program as successful in altering driver behaviors and added that the
program infrastructure allows for the easy implementation of additional
pricing schemes.
Participants also identified the Dallas-Fort Worth region as an example
of an urban area that is using a variety of management and pricing
schemes to raise revenue and alter travel behaviors. The approaches
being used included managing separate highway lanes for trucks and
commuters, using public-private partnerships and more effective pricing
mechanisms to reduce demand for single-occupancy travel and shift
travel times away from peak periods, charging tolls for traffic coming
into the urban area from the suburbs or rural areas, and flexing toll
revenues to subsidize a regional rail system. Additionally, the region
has plans to build new highways, convert existing highways to high-
occupancy toll lanes, and build a regional rail system, according to
participants. Several participants agreed that while these types of
state and local projects are important, federal incentives are needed
to encourage local leaders to invest not just in a single corridor, but
in the national transportation network.
Increased Consensus and Public Engagement Is Required to Transform
Transportation Policy, According to Participants:
While there is broad consensus among transportation experts of the need
for a transformation of transportation policy to better meet current
and future mobility needs, it is necessary to develop a constituency
that will push for and support change. There is a need to educate and
influence both political leaders and the broader public because
transportation is not currently perceived as a significant national
problem. The public and private sectors need to better understand the
magnitude and consequences of these transportation challenges to be
motivated to change the status quo. Additionally, local transportation
initiatives underway may offer lessons on how to build consensus needed
to address today's transportation challenges.
The Seriousness of the Problem Must Be Understood:
Participants said that the current system has a lot of supporters and
there is not currently enough unrest about the issues facing
transportation infrastructure to motivate change on a large scale.
Educating the public, the Congress, the private sector, environmental
groups, and regional leaders on the consequences of the nation's
transportation problems is a key step to initiating change, according
to participants. Participants said that the public, and others, are not
connecting the efficiency of the transportation system with their
overall quality of life. In addition, the message that transportation
affects the global economy and is fundamental to the nation's economic
success is currently not widely recognized. Users must be convinced
that it is in their interest to move towards change. Several
participants agreed that emphasizing the impending "crisis" related to
transportation might create an opportunity for change. Along these
lines, they suggested messages for the public and others such as:
* the current gas tax is insufficient for financing existing and new
infrastructure;
* the "congestion crisis" may stifle productivity, economic growth, and
the ability of the United States to remain competitive in a global
economy; and:
* global climate change is a crisis linked to carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gas emissions.
The importance of an efficient national transportation system is not
well understood, according to participants. They agreed that the
competitive advantage of efficiently moving goods needs to be
recognized and several mentioned that other countries, such as China,
have invested in a global transportation framework in order to ensure
that their economies are globally competitive. One participant
suggested that business leaders can help lead the push for change;
however, the private sector must have confidence that its investment
will yield a return. For example, according to one participant, the
private sector and others are willing to pay tolls for new
infrastructure, but are likely to resist paying new tolls for existing
roads and services unless they are being improved.
Local Initiatives Offer Opportunities for Innovative Solutions:
Participants agreed that states and some regions have demonstrated
strong leadership by implementing innovative pilot projects designed to
alleviate highway congestion and improve mobility. Additionally,
participants said that regional sales taxes and other dedicated
transportation taxes have encountered recent success in cases where
clear transportation benefits are understood by constituencies.
Participants said that the federal government should take a more active
role in supporting these types of transportation initiatives at the
state, regional, and local levels. They suggested, for example, that
the federal government eliminate some authority over parts of the
system and revisit existing statutory restrictions on certain
activities such as tolling.
According to participants, while innovative local transportation
initiatives are symptomatic of the current federal role in
transportation, they also offer opportunities for the federal
government to support transportation solutions that may be appropriate
for replication on a larger scale. For example, funding solutions, such
as congestion pricing, can be especially difficult to implement on the
local level because of their inherently political nature. The federal
government can provide "political cover" for state and local
governments' initiatives. Such federal support is critical to moving
promising local initiatives forward, according to participants.
Concluding Observations:
As we have previously reported and participants discussed throughout
the forum sessions, the magnitude of the nation's transportation
challenges calls for an urgent response, including a plan for the
future. The current lack of clear national transportation goals, a
blurred federal role in transportation, and the current funding crisis
are transportation issues that need to be articulated to the American
public in a way that can be understood. The nation's people and
businesses will be faced with the negative impacts of these
transportation challenges in the very near future. The federal role in
transportation needs to be better defined and focused on clearer
national transportation priorities. Options to address transportation
funding in the future are available, but there is no silver bullet
solution, and implementation can be politically difficult on both the
national and local levels because transportation financing options are
generally not well understood by the public or the private sector. GAO
and others will continue to assist the Congress and DOT as the federal
government works to develop a national transportation policy for the
21st century that will improve the design of transportation programs,
the delivery of services, and accountability for results.
[End of section]
Appendix I: List of Participants:
Moderator:
David M. Walker, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Participants:
William Ankner, Transportation Solutions;
Anne Canby, Surface Transportation Policy Partnership;
Frank Chin, Citigroup;
Mortimer Downey, PB Consult Inc.;
Tom Downs, ENO Transportation Foundation;
Tyler Duvall, U.S. Department of Transportation;
Peter Goelz, O'Neil and Associates;
Mike Gray, Dell, Inc.;
Bill Johnson, Port of Miami;
Daniel Kaplan, LECG;
David Lewis, HDR, Inc.;
Rich Macias, Southern California Association of Governments;
Robert Martinez, Norfolk Southern Corporation;
Michael Meyer, Georgia Institute of Technology;
Norm Mineta, Hill & Knowlton, Inc.;
Michael Morris, North Central Texas Council of Governments;
Robert Poole, Reason Foundation;
Robert Puentes, Brookings Institution;
Michael Replogle, Environmental Defense;
Nancy Sparks, FedEx Express;
James Whitty, Oregon Department of Transportation.
Bob Yaro, Regional Planning Association.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Forum Agenda:
8:30: Check-in.
8:45: Welcome and introductory remarks; David M. Walker, Comptroller
General of the United States.
9:15: Session 1: What are appropriate goals for the nation's
transportation policy?.
10:30: Break.
10:45: Session 2: What is the role of the federal government in
achieving these goals?.
12:00: Break.
12:15: Working lunch; Session 3: How can the transportation system be
financed to meet these goals?.
1:30: Break.
1:45: Session 4: What steps need to be taken to transform the nation's
transportation policy?.
3:00: Closing remarks;
David M. Walker, Comptroller General;
Pat Dalton, Managing Director, PI.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
JayEtta Z. Hecker, Director:
(202) 512-8984:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact above, Nikki Clowers, Assistant Director,
and Heather MacLeod managed all aspects of the work, and Jonathan
Carver, Elizabeth Eisenstadt, Chir-Jen Huang, Sara Ann Moessbauer,
Steven Putansu, Terry Richardson, Stan Stenersen, and Bethany Widick
made important contributions to organizing the forum and producing this
report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Financing the Nation's Transportation System:
Highway and Transit Investments: Flexible Funding Supports State and
Local Transportation Priorities and Multimodal Planning. GAO-07-772.
Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007.
Federal Aviation Administration: Viability of Current Funding Structure
for Aviation Activities and Observations on Funding Provisions of
Reauthorization Proposals. GAO-07-1104T. Washington, D.C.: July 12,
2007.
Airport Finance: Observations on Planned Airport Development Costs and
Funding Levels and the Administration's Proposed Changes in the Airport
Improvement Program. GAO-07-885. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2007.
Airport Finance: Preliminary Analysis Indicates Proposed Changes in the
Airport Improvement Program May Not Resolve Funding Needs for Smaller
Airports. GAO-07-617T. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2007.
Federal Aviation Administration: Observations on Selected Changes to
FAA's Funding and Budget Structure in the Administration's
Reauthorization Proposal. GAO-07-625T. Washington, D.C., March 21, 2007.
Performance and Accountability: Transportation Challenges Facing
Congress and the Department of Transportation. GAO-07-545T. Washington,
D.C.: March 6, 2007.
Intercity Passenger Rail: National Policy and Strategies Needed to
Maximize Public Benefits from Federal Expenditures. GAO-07-15.
Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2006.
Freight Railroads: Industry Health Has Improved, but Concerns about
Competition and Capacity Should be Addressed. GAO-07-94. Washington,
D.C.: October 6, 2006.
Aviation Finance: Observations on Potential FAA Funding Options. GAO-
06-973. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2006.
National Airspace System Modernization: Observations on Potential
Funding Options for FAA and the Next Generation Airspace System. GAO-
06-1114T. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2006.
Highway Finance: States' Expanding Use of Tolling Illustrates Diverse
Challenges and Strategies. GAO-06-554. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2006.
Highway Trust Fund: Overview of Highway Trust Fund Estimates. GAO-06-
572T. Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2006.
Federal Aviation Administration: An Analysis of the Financial Viability
of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. GAO-06-562T. Washington, D.C.:
March 28, 2006.
Freight Transportation: Short Sea Shipping Option Shows Importance of
Systematic Approach to Public Investment Decisions. GAO-05-768.
Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2005.
Highlights of an Expert Panel: The Benefits and Costs of Highway and
Transit Investments. GAO-05-423SP. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2005.
Airport and Airway Trust Fund: Preliminary Observations on Past,
Present, and Future. GAO-05-657T. Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2005.
Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information on
Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results.
GAO-05-172. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2005.
Federal-Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and Options for
Future Program Design. GAO-04-802. Washington, D.C.: August 31, 2004.
Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment Decisions. GAO-
04-744. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004.
Improving Mobility:
Public Transportation: Future Demand Is Likely for New Starts and Small
Starts Programs, but Improvements Needed to the Small Starts
Application Process. GAO-07-917. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2007.
Surface Transportation: Strategies Are Available for Making Existing
Road Infrastructure Perform Better. GAO-07-920. Washington, D.C.: July
26, 2007.
Intermodal Transportation: DOT Could Take Further Actions to Address
Intermodal Barriers. GAO-07-718. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2007.
Public Transportation: Preliminary Analysis of Changes to and Trends in
FTA's New Starts and Small Starts Programs. GAO-07-812T. Washington,
D.C.: May 10, 2007.
Commercial Aviation: Programs and Options for Providing Air Service to
Small Communities. GAO-07-793T. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2007.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Actions Needed to Clarify
Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness for Evacuations. GAO-07-44.
Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2006.
Federal Transit Administration: Progress Made in Implementing Changes
to the Job Access Program, but Evaluation and Oversight Processes Need
Improvement. GAO-07-43. Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2006.
Intercity Passenger Rail: National Policy and Strategies Needed to
Maximize Public Benefits from Federal Expenditures. GAO-07-15.
Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2006.
Freight Railroads: Industry Health has Improved, but Concerns about
Competition and Capacity Should be Addressed. GAO-07-94. Washington,
D.C.: October 6, 2006.
Commercial Aviation: Programs and Options for the Federal Approach to
Providing and Improving Air Service to Small Communities. GAO-06-398T.
Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2006.
Public Transportation: New Starts Program is in a Period of Transition.
GAO-06-819. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2006.
Public Transportation: Preliminary Information on FTA's Implementation
of SAFETEA-LU Changes. GAO-06-910T. Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2006.
Intermodal Transportation: Challenges to and Potential Strategies for
Developing Improved Intermodal Capabilities. GAO-06-855T. Washington,
D.C.: June 15, 2006.
Commuter Rail: Commuter Rail Issues Should Be Considered in Debate over
Amtrak. GAO-06-470. Washington, D.C.: April 21, 2006.
Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT's
Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient
Populations. GAO-06-52. Washington, D.C.: November 2, 2005.
Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would Redefine Federal
Role in Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities. GAO-05-727.
Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2005.
Federal-Aid Highways: FHWA Needs a Comprehensive Approach to Improving
Project Oversight. GAO-05-173. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2005.
Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information on
Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results.
GAO-05-172. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2005.
Federal-Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and Options for
Future Program Design. GAO-04-802. Washington, D.C.: August 31, 2004.
Improving Transportation Safety:
Motor Carrier Safety: Preliminary Information on the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration's Efforts to Identify and Follow Up with
High-risk Carriers. GAO-07-1074T. Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2007.
Motor Carrier Safety: A Statistical Approach Will Better Identify
Commercial Carriers That Pose High Crash Risks Than Does the Current
Federal Approach. GAO-07-585. Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2007.
Rail Safety: The Federal Railroad Administration Is Better Targeting
Safety Risks, but Needs to Assess Results to Determine the Impact of
Its Efforts. GAO-07-841T. Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2007.
Commercial Aviation: Potential Safety and Capacity Issues Associated
with the Introduction of the New A380 Aircraft. GAO-07-483. Washington,
D.C.: April 20, 2007.
Older Driver Safety: Knowledge Sharing Should Help States Prepare for
Increase in Older Driver Population. GAO-07-413. Washington, D.C.:
April 11, 2007.
Older Driver Safety: Survey of States on Their Implementation of
Federal Highway Administration Recommendations and Guidelines, an E-
Supplement. GAO-07-517SP. Washington, D.C.: April 11, 2007.
Aviation Safety: Improved Data Collection Needed for Effective
Oversight of Air Ambulance Industry. GAO-07-353. Washington, D.C.:
February 21, 2007.
Underinflated Tires in the United States. GAO-07-246R. Washington,
D.C.: February 9, 2007.
Rail Safety: The Federal Railroad Administration is Taking Steps to
Better Target Its Oversight, but Assessment of Results is Needed to
Determine Impact. GAO-07-149. Washington, D.C.: January 26, 2007.
Aviation Safety: FAA's Safety Efforts Generally Strong but Face
Challenges. GAO-06-1091T. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2006.
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Benefits Public
Safety, but Consistency of Performance Measures Should be Improved. GAO-
06-946. Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2006.
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety: Risk-Based Standards Should Allow
Operators to Better Tailor Reassessments to Pipeline Threats. GAO-06-
945. Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2006.
Truck Safety: Share the Road Safely Pilot Initiative Showed Promise,
but the Program's Future Success Is Uncertain. GAO-06-916. Washington,
D.C.: September 8, 2006.
Rail Transit: Additional Federal Leadership Would Enhance FTA's State
Safety Oversight Program. GAO-06-821. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: Education and Outreach
Programs Target Safety and Consumer Issues, but Gaps in Planning and
Evaluation Remain. GAO-06-103. Washington, D.C.: December 19, 2005.
Large Truck Safety: Federal Enforcement Efforts Have Been Stronger
Since 2000, but Oversight of State Grants Needs Improvement. GAO-06-
156. Washington, D.C.: December 15, 2005.
Highway Safety: Further Opportunities Exist to Improve Data on Crashes
Involving Commercial Motor Vehicles. GAO-06-102. Washington, D.C.:
November 18, 2005.
Aviation Safety: FAA's Safety Oversight System is Effective but Could
Benefit from Better Evaluation of Its Programs' Performance. GAO-06-
266T. Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2005.
Aviation Safety: System Safety Approach Needs Further Integration into
FAA's Oversight of Airlines. GAO-05-726. Washington, D.C.: September
28, 2005.
Vehicle Safety: Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's New Car
Assessment Program. GAO-05-370. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 2005.
Highway Safety: Improved Monitoring and Oversight of Traffic Safety
Data Program are Needed. GAO-05-24. Washington, D.C.: November 4, 2004.
Managing the Transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation
System:
Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status of the Transition to
the Future Air Traffic Control System. GAO-07-784T. Washington, D.C.:
May 7, 2007.
Joint Planning and Development Office: Progress and Key Issues in
Planning the Transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation
System. GAO-07-693T. Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2007.
Federal Aviation Administration: Key Issues in Ensuring the Efficient
Development and Safe Operation of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System. GAO-07-636T. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2007.
Next Generation Air Transportation System: Progress and Challenges in
Planning and Implementing the Transformation of the National Airspace
System. GAO-07-649T. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2007.
Federal Aviation Administration: Challenges Facing the Agency in Fiscal
Year 2008 and Beyond. GAO-07-490T. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2007.
Next Generation Air Transportation System: Progress and Challenges
Associated with the Transformation of the National Airspace System. GAO-
07-25. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2006.
Next Generation Air Transportation System: Preliminary Analysis of
Progress and Challenges Associated with the Transformation of the
National Airspace System. GAO-06-915T. Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2006.
Air Traffic Control Modernization: Status of the Current Program and
Planning for the Next Generation Air Transportation System. GAO-06-
653T. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2006.
Next Generation Air Transportation System: Preliminary Analysis of the
Joint Planning and Development Office's Planning, Progress, and
Challenges. GAO-06-574T. Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2006.
National Airspace System: Transformation will Require Cultural Change,
Balanced Funding Priorities, and Use of All Available Management Tools.
GAO-06-154. Washington, D.C.: October 14, 2005.
National Airspace System: FAA Has Made Progress but Continues to Face
Challenges in Acquiring Major Air Traffic Control Systems. GAO-05-331.
Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2005.
Federal Aviation Administration: Stronger Architecture Program Needed
to Guide Systems Modernization Efforts. GAO-05-266. Washington, D.C.:
April 29, 2005.
Building Human Capital Strategies:
Aviation Security: TSA's Staffing Allocation Model is Useful for
Allocating Staff among Airports, but Its Assumptions Should be
Systematically Reassessed. GAO-07-299. Washington, D.C.: February 28,
2007.
Aviation Safety: FAA Management Practices for Technical Training Mostly
Effective; Further Actions Could Enhance Results. GAO-05-728.
Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2005.
Human Capital: Agencies Need Leadership and the Supporting
Infrastructure to Take Advantage of New Flexibilities. GAO-05-616T.
Washington, D.C.: April 21, 2005.
Federal-Aid Highways: FHWA Needs a Comprehensive Approach to Improving
Project Oversight. GAO-05-173. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2005.
Fostering Improved Financial Management:
FAA Budget Policies and Practices. GAO-04-841R. Washington, D.C.: July
2, 2004.
Federal Aircraft: Inaccurate Cost Data and Weaknesses in Fleet
Management Planning Hamper Cost Effective Operations. GAO-04-645.
Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2004.
Improving Transportation Security and Emergency Preparedness and
Response:
Aviation Security: Foreign Airport Assessments and Air Carrier
Inspections Help Enhance Security, but Oversight of These Efforts Can
Be Strengthened. GAO-07-729. Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2007.
Aviation Security: Federal Efforts to Secure U.S.-Bound Air Cargo Are
in the Early Stages and Could Be Strengthened. GAO-07-660. Washington,
D.C.: April 30, 2007.
Passenger Rail Security: Federal Strategy and Enhanced Coordination
Need to Prioritize and Guide Security Efforts. GAO-07-583T. Washington,
D.C.: March 7, 2007.
Highway Emergency Relief: Reexamination Needed to Address Fiscal
Imbalance and Long-Term Sustainability. GAO-07-245. Washington, D.C.:
February 23, 2007.
Passenger Rail Security: Federal Strategy and Enhanced Coordination
Needed to Prioritize and Guide Security Efforts. GAO-07-459T.
Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2007.
Aviation Security: Progress Made in Systematic Planning to Guide Key
Investment Decisions, but More Work Remains. GAO-07-448T. Washington,
D.C.: February 13, 2007.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Actions Needed to Clarify
Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness for Evacuations. GAO-07-44.
Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2006.
Passenger Rail Security: Evaluating Foreign Security Practices and Risk
Can Help Guide Security Efforts. GAO-06-557T. Washington, D.C.: March
29, 2006.
Undeclared Hazardous Materials: New DOT Efforts May Provide Additional
Information on Undeclared Shipments. GAO-06-471. Washington, D.C.:
March 29, 2006.
Passenger Rail Security: Enhanced Federal Leadership Needed to
Prioritize and Guide Security Efforts. GAO-05-851. Washington, D.C.:
September 9, 2005.
General Aviation Security: Increased Federal Oversight is Needed, but
Continued Partnership with the Private Sector is Critical to Long-Term
Success. GAO-05-144. Washington, D.C.: November 10, 2004.
Transportation Security: Federal Action Needed to Help Address Security
Challenges. GAO-03-843. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003.
Transportation Security Research: Coordination Needed in Selecting and
Implementing Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessments. GAO-03-502.
Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2003.
[End of section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] See GAO, Performance and Accountability: Transportation Challenges
Facing Congress and the Department of Transportation, GAO-07-545T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 2007); and 21st Century Challenges:
Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, GAO-05-325SP
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2005).
[2] Transportation Research Board, Critical Issues in Transportation
(Washington, D.C.: 2006).
[3] GAO, Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving
Information on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing
Accountability for Results, GAO-05-172 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24,
2005).
[4] See GAO, Intermodal Transportation: DOT Could Take Further Actions
to Address Intermodal Barriers, GAO-07-718 (Washington, D.C.: June 20,
2007); Freight Railroads: Industry Health Has Improved, but Concerns
about Competition and Capacity Should Be Addressed, GAO-07-94
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 6, 2006); Freight Transportation: Strategies
Needed to Address Planning and Financing Limitations, GAO-04-165
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 2003); Intermodal Transportation:
Challenges to and Potential Strategies for Developing Improved
Intermodal Capabilities, GAO-06-855T (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006);
and Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would Redefine
Federal Role in Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities, GAO-05-727
(Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2005).
[5] See GAO, Performance and Accountability: Transportation Challenges
Facing Congress and the Department of Transportation, GAO-07-545T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 2007); and Highway Trust Fund: Overview of
Highway Trust Fund Estimates, GAO-06-572T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 4,
2006).
[6] GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-07-310 (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 31, 2007).
[7] GAO, Surface Transportation: Strategies Are Available for Making
Existing Road Infrastructure Perform Better, GAO-07-920 (Washington,
D.C.: July 26, 2007).
[8] Primary enforcement seat belt laws allow police officers to stop
vehicles and write citations whenever they observe violations of safety
belt laws.
[9] According to the regulations, states that enact and enforce a
primary safety belt use law are awarded a one-time grant award equal to
475 percent of the amount apportioned to the state under section 402(c)
for fiscal year 2003. Recipients are allowed to use the grant funds for
a variety of highway or roadway safety purposes.
[10] DOT has also recently initiated the Urban Partnership Agreement, a
program where DOT will support select metropolitan areas that agree to
pursue combined strategies (tolling, transit, telecommuting, and
technology) with a track record of effectiveness in reducing traffic
congestion. DOT will offer financial resources (including some
combination of grants, loans, and borrowing authority), regulatory
flexibility, and dedicated expertise and personnel in support of its
Urban Partners.
[11] Also see GAO, Highway Finance: States' Expanding Use of Tolling
Illustrates Diverse Challenges and Strategies, GAO-06-554 (Washington,
D.C.: June 28, 2006).
[12] See our forthcoming report on public-private partnerships that is
estimated to be published in the fall of 2007.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, Beckers@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: